1989 PLP 1443 (SCMR)
DIVISION and another Petitioners Versus Syed NAZAK HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1443 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman |
| Parties | DIVISION and another Petitioners Versus Syed NAZAK HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1443 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1443 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman Ghulam Mujaddid and Usman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1443 (SCMR) (DIVISION and another Petitioners Versus Syed NAZAK HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Siddiqui, Deputy Attorney‑General and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocafii on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service. Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12‑12‑1987 in Appeal No.92(R) of 1986) ‑‑‑S.11(3)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Temporary appointment held by an employee could be terminated only by the authority competent to make appointment on that post, if exigencies of service so required Termination of employee by a person not competent to terminate his employment was not valid‑‑Objection as to competency of initial appointment of employee being ab-initio void raised for the first time before Supreme Court was not warranted‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved to be examined by the Supreme Court‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Population Division, Islamabad, and the Principal, Regional Training Institute (Population), Rawalpindi, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 12‑12‑1987. On 10‑3‑1981, respondent Syed Nazak Hussain Shah was appointed as Mali by the Principal, Regional Training Institute, Rawalpindi. The appointment was "purely temporary, non‑pensionable and terminable at any time without assigning any cause or notice". Subsequently the appointment was regularized by office order, dated 13‑12‑1981 as the Departmental Selection Committee found the respondent suitable. On 26‑8‑1984 the Principal, Regional Training Institute terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his services were no longer required. Syed Nazak Hussain Shah filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. It was accepted by judgment, dated 12‑12‑1987. The Tribunal ordered that the respondent shall be reinstated in service with attending benefits. This led to the filing of the present petition. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General who appeared in support of this petition could not controvert the following finding of the Tribunal:‑ "...We are thus satisfied that the appointing authority in respect of the appellant was the Provincial Director General. No doubt the temporary appointment held by the appelalnt could be terminated under section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, but only by an authority who is competent to make appointment on that post. It thus follows that the temporary appointment held by the appellant could be terminated only by the Provincial Director General if the exegencies of the service so required. Quite obviously, therefore, the Principal, Regional Training Institute, was not competent to terminate the employment of the appellant." Deputy Attorney‑General attempted to argue that the initial appointment of the respondent by the Principal was ab initio void. It is too late now to take up this position because no such objection was ever raised at any stage. We don't find any question of law of public importance to be examined by this Court. Leave is accordingly refused. AA./S‑266/S Leave refused.