1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SIRAJ DIN Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
| Citation | 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members |
| Parties | SIRAJ DIN Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SIRAJ DIN Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdur Rehman for Appellant.
- Haroonur Rashid Cheema District Attorney for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ ‑‑ S. 4‑Appeal‑Res judicata‑Principle of res judicata‑Once an issue decided, same, held, cannot be reagitated through any other appeal being bit by principle of res judicata. (b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑ ‑‑S. 12 (ii) read with Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art, 13 ‑ Retirement‑Held, order passed under S. 12 (ii) cannot be challenged in view of Art. 13, Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. 12 (ii) read with Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art, 13 ‑ Retirement‑Held, order passed under S. 12 (ii) cannot be challenged in view of Art. 13, Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Malik Abdur Rehman for Appellant. Haroonur Rashid Cheema District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Sadiq Din has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which be has impleaded Government of the Punjab through Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be reinstated in service and the impugned order, dated 17th March, 1975, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala be set aside.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department at length. We have also perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
4. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Akhtar Saeed, Deputy Com missioner, Gujranwala, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, being the competent authority in the case of the appellant, ordered his retirement in public interest, with full pension and other benefits admissible to him under the rules vide his order, dated 17th March, 1975. The appellant filed appeal against the said order of his retirement before this Tribunal but the same was dismissed on 5th April, 1976.
5. In view of above, once an issue has been decided the same cannot be re‑agitated through any other appeal, as the present appeal would be hit by the principle of res judicata. Moreover, the present appeal would be barred by time for a period of 4 years also, the inordinate delay which cannot be condoned as no cogent reasons have been given in his applica tion under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The issue in this case is very) simple and appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that no exception can be taken to the order under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, in view of Article 13 of the P. C. O., 1981.
6. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits with costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.