1999SCMR 412 (PLP)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Chairman — Petitioner . Versus Malik MOBASHIR AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1999SCMR 412 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Chairman — Petitioner . Versus Malik MOBASHIR AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR 412 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR 412 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR 412 (PLP) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Chairman — Petitioner . Versus Malik MOBASHIR AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sadiq Abbassi, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1988.
- M. Sadiq Abbassi, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8-3-1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 398(R) to 401(R) of 1986).
Art. 212(3)
Question of quantum of pension to civil servant who was already compulsorily retired--Punishments awarded which were subject-matter of these petitions if upheld, the civil servant would be entitled to pension at a slightly lesser rate--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of all the above petitions, as the question falling for determination in all of them is the same. The penalties imposed upon the respondent have been set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground that the competent authority did not afford a personal hearing to the respondent before imposing them. The learned counsel for WAPDA submits that this was not necessary and even if it was, these matters should have been remanded to the Authority to recommence proceedings from the stage from where the illegality, if any, crept in. The respondent has already been compulsorily retired. The question now only is the rate of pension to which he is entitled. 1n case the punishments awarded, which are the subject‑matter of these petitions, are upheld, the A respondent will be entitled to pension at a slightly lesser rate. Not a fit case for exercise of this Court's discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. All these petitions are dismissed. MA.K./W‑41/S. Petitions dismissed.