1993 PLP 2300 (SCMR)
KHURSHEED AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2300 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | KHURSHEED AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2300 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2300 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2300 (SCMR) (KHURSHEED AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Niaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and MAJ. Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 20‑3‑1993 passed in Appeal No‑ 14 (K) of 1992). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Civil servant having been compulsorily retired with effect from 4‑9‑1984, his retirement on appeal was converted into stoppage of three increments by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Civil servant was reinstated but without back benefits and period for which he remained retired was declared to be considered as extra ordinary leave without pay‑‑ Civil servant again approached Service Tribunal with grievance that move‑over allowed to him was belated and he was entitled to move‑over from earlier specified date‑‑‑Civil servants appeal was dismissed for valid reasons that previous judgment of Service Tribunal having not been challenged before Supreme Court, he was not entitled to the relief claimed‑‑‑Service break having occurred in petitioner s case and he having not been moved over to next grade from speed date and there being no annual confidential reports (during the period he remained retired) on basis of which he would have got move‑over, he could not claim move‑over in next higher grade retrospectively‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑In consequence of disciplinary proceedings, petitioner as Assistant Engineer (B‑16) in T&T Department was compulsorily retired with effect from 4‑9‑1984 but his appeal was allowed by Federal Service Tribunal converting retirement into stoppage of three increments vide judgment dated 27‑10‑1988. He had already reached maximum of B‑16 on 1‑12‑1983 but could not get move‑over on account of retirement. He was reinstated but without back benefits and the period he remained retired was declared to be considered as extraordinary leave without pay.
2. Petitioner approached the Tribunal again with grievance that move over allowed to him from 1‑2‑1989 after reinstatement was belated and he was entitled to move‑over from 1‑12‑1984 as he had reached maximum in previous grade on 1‑12‑1983. Appeal of the petitioner is dismissed for valid reasons that previous judgment of the Tribunal was not challenged in the Supreme Court and has been acted upon by the Government by allowing move‑over with clarification in the addendum of 9‑2‑1989 to the effect that on restoration the order shall not operate to postpone further increments.
3. Contentions raised before us on behalf of the petitioner are untenable. There was break in service when petitioner retired and even if that period is treated as extraordinary leave without pay the same would not entitle him to earn increments during that period. Secondly in Grade‑16 petitioner had already reached maximum on 1‑12‑1983 before he was retired, hence question of increment would arise only when he gets move‑over to the next grade. Thirdly for move‑over there is formula to be followed including definite number of favourable consecutive annual confidential reports, which could not be possible during the period of extraordinary leave without pay.
4. There is no flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal requiring interference hence leave is refused and petition is dismissed as without merits. AA./K‑230/S Leave refused.