1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
FAZAL KARIM Versus EDUCATION DEPARTMENT through Secretary and others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | FAZAL KARIM Versus EDUCATION DEPARTMENT through Secretary and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (FAZAL KARIM Versus EDUCATION DEPARTMENT through Secretary and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Mehmood Shiekh for Petitioner
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Grievance of employee‑‑‑Remedy against‑‑‑Grievance of employee with regard to payment of salary, being related to terms and conditions of his service, he should, in the first instance approach departmental Authorities, before approaching appropriate forum for redress of his grievance.
Judgment & Decree
The dispute in this case relates to payment of salary of the petitioner since May 1992.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed as PTC teacher by Deputy District Education Officer (M), Lahore Cantonment, Lahore, respondent No.2 herein, vide order No.768/E‑I, dated 13‑10‑1987 and was posted at Government Primary School, Sutter Mills, Lahore. Initially the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of 360 days, which was extended from time to time for a period of 360 days.
3. It is further alleged that although the initial appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis but thereafter he was reguilarised against an existing vacancy in the same school and was allowed to work as such till further order.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that ever since his appointment he has been performing his duty in the said school and drawing his monthly wages/salary, but the respondent have refused to make the payment since May, 1992, without any justification.
5. It is not necessary to examine the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that the grievance of the petitioner relates to terms and conditions of his service. He should in the first instance, approach the departmental authorities before approaching the appropriate forum for redress of his grievance.
6. Be that as it may in order to avoid protracted litigation between the parties, the Deputy District Education Officer (M), Lahore Cantonment Lahore, respondent No.2 herein, is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass such orders as he may deem fit in accordance with law. A copy of this order along with the writ petition may be sent to him forthwith. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./F‑118/L Order accordingly.