1989SCMR708 (PLP)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus AJMAL HAMEED — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR708 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus AJMAL HAMEED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR708 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR708 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR708 (PLP) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus AJMAL HAMEED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Hassan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1988.
- Ghulam Hassan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 29-5-1984, passed in Appeal No. 116(L) of 1981).
S.17(1-A)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Removal from service- Employee proceeded on leave and after its expiry applied for extension--Such extension being in violation of his undertaking, was refused and he was informed to join duty within stipulated time, failing which his services would be terminated--Employee having failed to re-join service, was served with thirty days' notice, where after his removal under S.17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act was effected--Employee submitted resignation in the meantime and after three years moved the Authority for reinstatement in service which was rejected, his appeal against such order also failed--Employee, however, succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from Service Tribunal--Authority's plea that employee's appeal before Service Tribunal was hopelessly barred by time, as after submitting his resignation, he did not agitate the matter for a considerably long time and that Tribunal had erred in ignoring such legal infirmity in appeal, required consideration--Leave to appeal was granted to consider plea.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 29‑5‑1984/14‑6‑1984.
2. Ajmal Hameed respondent was appointed as a temporary junior Engineer on 26‑8‑1974. He was sanctioned ex‑Pakistan leave for three months effective from 1st April, 1976 or the date of availing for performing Umra and visit to holy shrines. The leave was actually availed of from 30‑6‑1976 and was to expire on 30thSeptember, 1976 when he sent a telegram on 2‑10‑1976 for extension of leave from Tehran. This extension being in violation of his own undertaking was refused and he was informed by registered letter on 9‑10‑1976 that in case he did not join service within fifteen days, his services would be terminated. The respondent did not rejoin the service, therefore, vide letter dated 2‑6‑1977 he was served with a thirty days' notice where after his removal under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, was communicated and it became effective from 1‑7‑1977.
3. The respondent then submitted his resignation which was received by the relevant authority on 3‑6‑1977 and it was after three long years that he wrote a letter to the C.M.L.A. which was sent for disposal to the Ministry of Water and Power on 1‑4‑1981. This appeal was also rejected on 15‑9‑1981. From the above order the respondent was successful in obtaining a favourable order from the Federal Service Tribunal on 29‑5‑1984.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently contended that the appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly barred by time in that after submitting his resignation which was received by the relevant authority on 3‑6‑1977 the respondent did not agitate the matter for a considerably long time, therefore, the learned Tribunal has legally erred in ignoring this legal `~ infirmity in the appeal before it.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we think the case requires consideration. We, therefore grant leave. Security Rs.2,
000. A.A./W‑45/S Leave to appeal granted.